Something something Ron Lindsay blah blah blah.

Against my better judgement, I read a post by CFI’s Ron Lindsay entitled The Latest Harris Book/The Latest Harris Controversy. It’s pretty much unremarkable, except for this:

As indicated by my scare quotes, I’m not sure there’s an atheist “community” or “movement,” as opposed to there simply being atheists, some of whom have aligned themselves with one group or another, and some of whom—a distinct minority I believe—seem to relish making hateful, contemptible comments, most of which are directed against women. I can speak only for CFI, but this last group of individuals is not welcome in our organization, and, as we have done in the past, CFI unqualifiedly condemns their conduct.

Except when Ron Lindsay personally welcomed hateful, contemptible anti-feminist harassers to CFI’s Women in Secularism 2 conference? Devoted 10 minutes of his 30 minute opening remarks(!) to ‘splaining to a room full of feminist activists how we should all just, you know, hear them out? And when Rebecca Watson mildly criticized him for that wildly inappropriate BS, took to his blog during the conference (that Skepchick sponsored and where she was a speaker and panelist) and likened such criticism to living under a North Korean dictator?

That Ron Lindsay? Ooooookay.

If he wants to move on, condemn the shitweaselry he engaged in and so eagerly enabled, and strive to become a better human being, great. Seriously: that is both welcome and important. He doesn’t get to rewrite history, though. I was there. And this is gaslighting.

Speaking of comments, I am closing this post to comments. That’s not CFI’s usual practice, but in this case I’m doing it for a very practical reason: as just indicated, blog posts on issues relating to sex/gender issues tend to bring out the worst in some people. Although I’m sure most comments would be phrased in acceptable language, our experience has been that blog posts that touch on these topics require close moderation and neither Paul Fidalgo, who serves as our moderator, nor I will be available to moderate over the next few days.

Hahahaha. Awesome. Well, as we all know “blog posts on issues relating to sex/gender issues tend to bring out the worst in some people.” Not Ron Lindsay, of course. He is at his finest! But whatever we do, let us refrain from using language unacceptable to the delicate ears of Ron Lindsay. If we cannot explain the horrors of sexism to white d00ds in leadership positions in calm, soothing, Vulcan-like tones—taking great care to avoid hurting any man fee-fees—we can simply be dismissed as the emotional, irrational, shrieking harpies we clearly are.


In case you missed it: Another point of view re: the latest from Sam Harris. (<—Palace Endorsed 100% Seal of Approval™.)

HAPPY WEEKEND, Loyal Readers™!


2 thoughts on “Something something Ron Lindsay blah blah blah.

  1. When I saw your post on FB about this, I cringed. I just figured it was another Harris or Dawkins defender. It would certainly not be that out of character for Ron Lindsay to defend sexist assholes. Even though it’s a case of Ron Lindsay saying something really stupid, and seemingly ignorant of history (I mean, really, he *was* quite welcoming to the damn Pitters), I take some small pittance of satisfaction from the fact that he didn’t come down on the side of Dawkins or Harris. Of course, I’m betting he didn’t publicly excoriate them like PZ, Amanda Marcotte, or Adam Lee did…which says something in itself. But wait. Before I say all that (even though I just did, and I’m far too lazy a queer shoop to hit ‘backspace’), I’ll go read the article, since you so handily linked to it…BRB…
    …Ok, I’m back. Scratch that sentence about Lindsay not addressing Harris’ statements (yes, still too lazy). He defends them. Fuck me. Why is this so damn hard for people to understand? Harris doesn’t know that there are more male atheists than female. I doubt he knows the gender makeup of his readership. I really doubt he knows the gender makeup of the atheist movement. Yet he claims to know these things, and offered no proof to support his opinion. Then he claimed that atheism needs some stupid nurturing estrogen vibe (NEV) to appeal to more women (ignoring the women who already participate in the Atheist movement, who apparently *don’t* need this NEV), which just assumes that nurturing is a quality inherent to women or one they have an affinity for. Nevermind that he offered no evidence of this either. Despite Harris’ total lack of evidence in support of his views, despite his gender essentialist just-so bullcaca (I can’t fucking use curse words here can I :) and despite his view that men appreciate confrontation more than women, Ron Lindsay manages to support that fooking fooker (must not profane…shit this sucks). Lovely. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised from the man who shat on women while opening WiS2.

  2. Not only is there no evidence for his gender essentialist just-so bullcaca, as Greta points out, the (apparent) dearth of atheist women is a uniquely American phenomenon. Maybe the Lords of Logic should consider the implications of that…hmm, what is the word I’m looking for…oh yeah FACT?

    If you fill out Palace Form #1040694579234, in triplicate, and pay the $1 million fee, I’ll go in and edit your comment for you. It’s an extra service we provide for lazy shoops. :p

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s